Given: Guns in America are here to stay for the foreseeable future.
Let’s not have a gun control debate.
Instead, let’s talk about the disposition of confiscated guns.
AFAIK, confiscated guns are destroyed after a while. Maybe not all of them, but many of them. Millions, probably. Why not sell them? The various government agencies would make a lot more money by selling them to distributors/jobbers (thus aiding those people’s employment) than they do by selling the shredded scrap or dumping the scrap in the ocean. Or they could sell the militarily useful ones, or those useful to police agencies, to foreign governments.
The thing that pains me is that the collectible ones are destroyed just the same as the others.
Seeing as law enforcement has a rotten record of maintaining firearms in evidence lockers, I’d just as soon see them destroyed - Every one I’ve ever seen come back from evidence was so badly damaged by neglect that they were candidates for a mjor overhaul, at best. I’d really not see such damaged weapons being sold.
Would you trust an extractor from a hunk of rust? A mainspring? Of seven firearms I’ve personally seen come back from the evidence locker (two different agencies, two different states), only one was NOT basically a block of rust.
I agree. If it’s a cheap piece of junk, nobody’s going to miss it. If it’s a nice quality machine, sell it for what it’s worth. I’d guess most gun crime isn’t done with a $500 Sig.
The first time someone is murdered using one of these guns, is the seller, the government, going to be held liable? There are already enough guns in the US, destroy them.
Why the fuck should anyone be held liable other than the murderer? If someone’s killed in a hit-and-run, is Ford or Toyota liable? Is the car dealer who sold the car liable?
If I was a gun manufacturer, I’d want them destroyed to keep the supply limited and force folks to buy new guns.
Truly valuable or unique guns could be sold off just like any other confiscated goods. Police do it with cars and homes from drug dealers, why not their guns, too?
Yeah, I hate it when I see footage on TV of guns going to the shredder and can pick out Lugers and ‘broomhandle’ Mausers; let alone the antique and wartime 1911s that are probably in there, but which I can’t identify at a glance.
I like this idea. Of course, we need to come to a reckoning of what “worth something” means; dollar value alone may not be enough.
I bought one of these years ago, for around $500. It’s a great shooter (even if the author seems to be damning with faint praise).
I could probably sell it used for around $200. Is it a “junk gun?” Is it to be classified as a “Saturday Night Special” by make/model/$$$ value? Or would it be evaluated by actual condition/serviceability?
Not all “value guns” are junky, cheap pieces-of-shit used only by criminals.
That may be because they have no incentive to keep them nice. If they’re just going to destroy the guns after holding them, what do they care if the body rusts out.
If someone (or some agency) was making some money off this, there would be an incentive to maintain the guns to a better standard.
<anecdote>I was speaking with a Class III dealer once who found out that the NYPD had possession of M1921 Thompson Submachineguns serial #'s 1, 2, 3, 4, 5, 6 and 7. These were owned by the department rather than confiscated as evidence, I believe. The dealer said that he tried like hell to get them to sell the guns to him. Result: they were melted down.</anecdote>
Hmm. Maybe. More likely, simple neglect - They were ‘evidence’ (one case involving a defensive shooting at home, the other a vindictive false claim of ‘terrorism’ by a jilted girlfriend), and sat on the shelves in the evidence lockers for a LONG time before being returned. Cops often enough take poor care of their personal weapons; weapons sitting in the evidence locker aren’t going to see any care at all.
